Wallabies v All Blacks, Saturday 19th August, ANZ Stadium Sydney

[Viking]

Foley's pass was backwards out of the hands.
Foley beat Barret to the ball definately
The All blacks score trys like the folau kurindrani thing all the time. They just through the ball and it comes off people's heads and they score. They are always having the bounce of the ball. It's like they worship the only real God and get rewarded for it

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

Like mentioned before, even if we deserved them, we still don't deserve to take anything out of the second half. The positives are out-done by the dismal first half performance and the fact that the All Blacks knew they had already won and switched off.

If we think our attack is good based on those tries, well next week will just be another reality check.

 

[TOCC]

I watched this game at the pub, a surprising number of people were actually watching the game, by that I mean there were 10 other people watching. It was depressing actually, people started laughing at the number of mistakes the Wallabies made, to the point it was comical.

And whilst a lot has been made of the defence, I don't know how many dropped passes and times Wallabies players lost possessions of the all in contact. These are basic skills that they can't get right.

 

[RedsHappy]

But this is the culture from the ARU chairman down. Why wouldn't the coach and the players buy into it. It's the corporate culture of the organisaton. Nothing, repeat nothing, will change until the whole structure of the game is reorganised. Rugby in Australia needs a purge of Stalinist proportions from the top down.

QH, you would know that I'd agree with that, having made the same point for at least 6 years or more here.

Amongst many other deficiencies, the institutional culture of Australian rugby has evolved into one where literally no one takes genuine responsibility for anything, and accordingly there is no genuine accountability. So concomitantly there is no sincere, credible passion of ownership for outcomes, because the consequences of failure are rarely personal, the blame can always be shifted to vague and indeterminate places and so quickly forgotten.

That state always presages and leads to institutional collapse, or a radical change in the very top leadership that fixes it. Just a matter of how long it takes, which is hard to pick.

In Australian rugby there is zero sign of the latter - serious leadership change - arising (as the ARU board only vaguely answers to State RUs that it funds and give multiple forms of patronage to and vice versa and thus such bodies do not resist the parent entity in any meaningful ways, it's all a cosy system of mutually assured incompetence and strategic indolence), so the inevitable institutional collapse is surely the most likely outcome.

I have predicted here and before that c.2019 will be the year of an undeniable financial and systemic crisis within Australian rugby.

Only then and in that condition may we finally see the possibility of genuine change occurring and a new possibility of a movement toward the light, toward some kind of essential re-birth.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I admire people's passion and enthusiasm for debating the selection of one player over another. Without it these threads wouldn't exist.

I would point out though that, broadly speaking, we have the best available players in the squad and we have the best available head coach.

QH, I agreed with you up to the point highlighted.

There were and are better players not in the squad, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that there are much better head coaches going around.

For starters, it was a crazy decision to leave Scott Fardy out of the squad as he is streets better than Hanigan. Even with that brain fart, to persist with Hanigan over the likes of RHP shows a real blindness on the part of the coach. Other players who would be better replaced include Hooper by Hardwick or McMahon until Pocock returns, Phipps by Powell, Foley by Lance, Beale at 12 by Meakes, Kerevi by Kuridrani, Rona by Naivalu when fit, Folau by DHP when fit. And on the bench, Robertson by anyone.

It is not simply that better players are available, but there are many better combinations. The makeup of the backrow has been a shambles just about all year, and previously under Cheika. The centre combination for this game was an obvious debacle waiting to happen.

All of the foregoing deficiencies are attributable to one man, Cheika. Any other head coach would not be son committed to continuing those failures in game strategy and player combinations.

Then the defense coach and his systems are really the pits. It is time for big changes. but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[tragic]

I really don't think it's as bad as it could have been. I thought we'd get owned in most facets of play.
In fact we held our own in a number of areas. Especially the set piece.
But our defensive alignment was just woeful.
As an example Folau drifted in because we had no 1 marking up on no 10 and quite rightly he was concerned about the defensive mismatch. But in doing so he gave ioane too much space. Props should be covering the inside channels where there is less space. So many of the ABs tries were not truly missed one on one tackles but rather desperate lunges at a player running into space at speed. The space was created by poor defensive alignment.
That falls back on poor coaching and defensive systems.
All the players are capable of making their one on one tackles if they have the right alignment and aren't lunging at holes in a staggered defensive line peppered with defensive mismatches.
It should be an easy fix.
Unfortunately though the focus on defence over the next week will probably just expose other flaws and we will be bemoaning a whole new facet of play come next Sat.

 

[D-Box]

Watching the game last night it looked like the AB had worked out how to beat the defensive system (insert your own well duh sarcastic comment). I haven't watched a second time but the shooting 13 was being beaten by simple in lines. Whoever was in the 13 channel appeared to almost go past the attacker hitting short waiting for the ball coming out to an unders player or over the top. Considering that this happens whoever was there probably says something about the system. What I don't know is should we be blaming the 13 channel defender for not hitting in or the 12 for not drifting out hard enough. I remember seeing Rona a couple of times start to go to hit in and then pull back. Same as Speight. This suggest the instinctive thing (and probably how the Force and Brumbies defend) is to hit the player running short but the Grey defence says no

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

Like mentioned before, even if we deserved them, we still don't deserve to take anything out of the second half. The positives are out-done by the dismal first half performance and the fact that the All Blacks knew they had already won and switched off.

If we think our attack is good based on those tries, well next week will just be another reality check.

We were in a position to get close and win at one stage. Because we started playing attacking rugby. Luckily for us it worked. It could of went against us and had a bigger score on us but it didn't.
We still have positives

Beale
Kurindrani looked ok.
Lots of injuries atm as well.

Negitives far outweigh the positives though. That's for sure.
Kerevi should be one of our best players. He was terrible. What the hell happened to him
Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

I suppose when we pick a player at 13 (the hardest defensive position of all) who doesn't normally play there we should not be surprised when it all turns to merde.



Is it any wonder we struggle to beat anybody?

 

[RedsHappy]

I watched this game at the pub, a surprising number of people were actually watching the game, by that I mean there were 10 other people watching. It was depressing actually, people started laughing at the number of mistakes the Wallabies made, to the point it was comical.

And whilst a lot has been made of the defence, I don't know how many dropped passes and times Wallabies players lost possessions of the all in contact. These are basic skills that they can't get right.

Hence M Lynagh's anguish:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/m...n-grey-after-5434-defeat-20170819-gy01jr.html

 

[Braveheart81]

I suppose when we pick a player at 13 (the hardest defensive position of all) who doesn't normally play there we should not be surprised when it all turns to merde.



Is it any wonder we struggle to beat anybody?

Huh? 13 is where Kerevi normally plays.

Presumably he won't be playing there for the Wallabies again any time soon though.

Hard to see him making the 23 next weekend.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[bigmac]

I really don't think it's as bad as it could have been. I thought we'd get owned in most facets of play.
In fact we held our own in a number of areas. Especially the set piece.
But our defensive alignment was just woeful.
As an example Folau drifted in because we had no 1 marking up on no 10 and quite rightly he was concerned about the defensive mismatch. But in doing so he gave ioane too much space. Props should be covering the inside channels where there is less space. So many of the ABs tries were not truly missed one on one tackles but rather desperate lunges at a player running into space at speed. The space was created by poor defensive alignment.
That falls back on poor coaching and defensive systems.
All the players are capable of making their one on one tackles if they have the right alignment and aren't lunging at holes in a staggered defensive line peppered with defensive mismatches.
It should be an easy fix.
Unfortunately though the focus on defence over the next week will probably just expose other flaws and we will be bemoaning a whole new facet of play come next Sat.

Any defensive pattern needs to be simple. Whatever they are doing is way too complex with players swapping about and some rushing up others staying back. Under pressure you always go back to simple basic stuff.
I remember the two different methods ie man on man or drift defence (my preference). Players stay in place and assume every one can do basic tackling. The wallabies system seems to protect some players from the chore of tackling which sends a very bad message to the rest of the team.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Huh? 13 is where Kerevi normally plays.

Presumably he won't be playing there for the Wallabies again any time soon though.

Hard to see him making the 23 next weekend.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I thought he was basically a 12??? Old age.

 

[liquor box]

I feel bad for Kerevi, There is still so much potential there. but I haven't seen a lot of improvement the last 2 years.

If he can get his defence sorted, there is no reason he can't be a world class Centre at either 12 or 13.

Just imagine how good Kerevi would be if he had been in the All Blacks coaching systems.

His stats are great for the reds because he gets his hands on the ball against non-international skilled teams.

He cant kick, tackle or distribute that ball well. His only world class skill is running the ball at an opponent, we need complete players.

As a Reds fan/member I will always support Kerevi but I can see many things that stop him from being the best man for his position in the team.


The Wallabies pick players based on one exceptional skill and disregard the many faults of a player. Most of the time this fault is defence and we focus (like the coach does) on the positives.

This game in itself highlights what is wrong with selections of our team, we pick a team that can score over thirty points against the best team in the world and forget that this is pointless if they can score over fifty.

 

[TOCC]

Huh? 13 is where Kerevi normally plays.

Presumably he won't be playing there for the Wallabies again any time soon though.

Hard to see him making the 23 next weekend.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

He was picked there but didn't defend there.. Rona and Speight both spent a significant amount of time defending at 13, the 'plan' if you could call it that, seemed to have Kerevi at 12 and KB (Kurtley Beale) on wing or fullback with Rona and Speight defending at 13

 

[cyclopath]

Like mentioned before, even if we deserved them, we still don't deserve to take anything out of the second half. The positives are out-done by the dismal first half performance and the fact that the All Blacks knew they had already won and switched off.

If we think our attack is good based on those tries, well next week will just be another reality check.

You really think the All Blacks "switch off"? I don't. I have not seen much compelling evidence that they are in the habit of doing that. I thought in the first half the ABs played very solid football, without being freakishly brilliant, against an absolutely shambolic defence. They are that good because they play solid rugby, doing the basics right, most of the time. But they're not invincible, and they can be pressured.
In the second half, I thought our defensive alignment improved just a little bit (Kuridrani solidified the midfield appreciably), and the line-speed did too, and the ABs made some errors, which we saw they can and will, under some pressure, against the Lions. Our attack managed to capitalise, partly on the back of some faster recycling in phases, and opportunism (incidentally, just how the ABs score quite a few of their tries).
The second half revival does not mitigate the first half disaster (basically defensively), but it is too convenient to pin it on the ABs switching off. I think our bench gave us more than theirs gave them, relatively.
Does that give any of the coaches a pass mark. No bloody way. Not even close. But there was undoubtedly some much better play in that second half.

 

[gel]

Im not certain that Wayne Barnes' spacial acuity is his greatest strength.

Having watched a number of his matches now, the subjects of forward passes and crooked throw ins feature heavily in his "wtf" decisions.

But I like his ref'ing mostly and he clearly manages to produce good games.

 

[Quick Hands]

I feel bad for Kerevi, There is still so much potential there. but I haven't seen a lot of improvement the last 2 years.

If he can get his defence sorted, there is no reason he can't be a world class Centre at either 12 or 13.

Just imagine how good Kerevi would be if he had been in the All Blacks coaching systems.

To extend your point Seb, name me a player in Australian professional rugby who has shown significant improvement in the past two years.

Therein lies the problem.

EDIT: And if you are able to name one, then try and name 15.

 

[redstragic]

He was picked there but didn't defend there.. Rona and Speight both spent a significant amount of time defending at 13, the 'plan' if you could call it that, seemed to have Kerevi at 12 and KB (Kurtley Beale) on wing or fullback with Rona and Speight defending at 13

He looked to me as though he did not trust the guy outside him and tried to defend both channels leaving him grasping at air. To be fair, the All Blacks were amazing for the first 50 minutes. Thankfully they switched off after posting those 2 early tries in the second half.

Sent from my SM-J710GN using Tapatalk

 

[KAOPointman]

Ah maybe the problem is it doesn't fix the defensive issue of having weak defenders at 10 and 12. Also as others have said Beale has played maybe one or two games at 10 at senior level where he'd be regarded as achieving passable results. He is not a 10. He is an individualistic player generally not suited to the bulk of work and decision making a 10 needs to get through.

Then because Folau can catch a high ball he is the best at 15? You do realise that a 15, especially a test 15 needs to have better positional awareness in defence than Folau has shown for 5 years and a 15 at any level should be able to kick the ball in clearance. Folau is a one trick (ok two trick he can run with ball in hand and beat the first defender) pony.

Totally don't agree...Foley is clearly documented as terrible at Playmaking yet we have grasping at straw candidates in Beale to try or the blind Freddie option of Quade who hasn't even had 10secs on the field to prove he's always good if the forwards are aiming up!
And Folou is clearly our best FB....with DHP maybe a close 2nd but not as leathal and the same deficiencies!

 

[Lorenzo]

Its fucking criminal to have to shuffle your INSIDE CENTRE out for defense.

Over the last 15 years we've been somewhat pleased with our ability to achieve reasonable results at provincial and tier 2 (teams 5 through 10, roughly) test level by ignoring the realities of tier 1 test footy, and those realities are that defence is he most important thing and that kicking *(both varieties) is the second most important thing.

In what I assume is an attempt to ensure a sufficient level of 'entertainment', we've focused on how many 'playmakers' we need (the correct answer is zero) instead of how to ensure we quite simply score more points than the opposition.

This starts at the top, where the CEO publicly talks about 'smart, creative attractive running rugby' and the coach takes a year to (publicly, at least) acknowledge that test footy may just require a different approach to super rugby.

The result of all this is that a) we are still losing to the best, b) far from attracting new fans with the entertainment, even us die hards are tempted to switch off, and c) we are now losing to the provincial teams (see this year super rugby) and the tier 2 test sides.

I don't know if anyone caught the early 2000 bledisloe re runs on fox yesterday, but anz wasn't close to full because we were prioritizing "smart creative running rugby", it was close to full because we have a chance of actually fucking winning, and that's because the players, coaches and administration were focused solely on WINNING.

Getting fed up with this shit. Is it even worth 35 bucks a month to have fox sports HD anymore?

*Within this I've assumed that you are picking a front row that can scrummage and and second row that can jump.